A view from the other side - John Dougherty

The lovely Jo Cotterill

Whoops! It's the 29th and I should have posted first thing this morning!!! Sorry. My life is chaotic at the best of times; at the moment I'm as scatty as anything.

It's at times like this I'm glad I have friends who are more organised and together than I am. And one of the very best of those is the lovely Jo Cotterill, whose powers of togetherness quite frankly astonish me at times.

One of the reasons I'm particularly glad of this right now is that some months ago Jo and I were invited to be guest programmers for the Chipping Norton Literary Festival, or ChipLitFest as it's affectionately known. It's been an interesting process, largely involving me going, "Er... where are we on things again?" and Jo sighing and opening her folder and telling me exactly where we are on things and what additional things we need to be doing.

But one of the most interesting aspects of the whole things has been seeing the publishing industry from a different angle. I'd always imagined the process of booking an author for a literary festival to be something like this:

EMAILS:
LITERARY FESTIVAL BOOKING PERSON: Hello! We'd like to book some authors for our literary festival, please!
PUBLICITY PERSON AT PUBLISHING HOUSE: Certainly! Here is a long list of suitable authors, none of whom is John Dougherty!
LFBP: Thanks!

Instead of which, it's been more like this:
EMAILS:
LFBP [in this case, me or Jo]: Hello! We'd like to book some authors for our literary festival, please!
Jo & I talk about specific authors we might like to book>
LFBP: Hello! Further to our last email, we've decided we'd like to invite the fabulous Author X to our festival. Are they free?

LFBP: Er... Hello! Did you get our email about Author X?
PPAPH: Oh - sorry. The person who deals with Author X was on holiday. They're back now. I'm sure they'll be in touch soon.
LFBP: Oh, good.

PPAPH: Sorry! Been busy. I'll ask Author X if she's free.


PHONE CALL:
LFBP 1: You know, I do have Author X's email address...
LFBP 2: Do you want to just contact her? We have tried the proper channels...

EMAILS:
LFBP: Hello! Has PPAPH asked you about  appearing at our festival?
AUTHOR X: Er... no.
LFBP: Well, would you like to?
AX: Yes! Yes, oh god, yes!!!
LFBP:

I'm not sure why this is, but I suspect in part it's got to do with publishing houses publishing more books with fewer staff. Anyway, if there's a lesson in here, it's probably that more than ever, professional writers need to take as much responsibility as they can for their own promotion. But also, perhaps, that writers and publicists both need to work together and keep channels of communication open. Oh, and that there may be established ways of doing things in the industry, but there are no 'right' ways.

Photo by Jemima Cotterill

 PS Jo and I were interviewed for the ChipLitFest website by the festival's own junior reporter, the fabulous Pheebs. You can read the interview here.

___________________________________________________________________

John's Stinkbomb & Ketchup-Face series, illustrated by David Tazzyman, is published by OUP - who will also be publishing Jo Cotterill's & Cathy Brett's Electrigirl in the spring.

Markets, Institutions and Children's Books: Is there a problem? - Emma Barnes

This post is by way of being a Part 2. In Part 1 I wrote about how different kinds of books  reach a reader's hands in different ways. I used the example of my own favourite childhood reads to show that while some books make their way to the reader directly through the “market” (in my case this was often through the medium of DL's Book Exchange, a bookshop in Edinburgh), others may rely on “non-market” institutions – libraries, schools, prize committees – to champion them, and to allow them to reach what may often be much more of a slow-build or niche readership.
I argued that both the commercial mass market and the non-market institutions had a role to play in championing different kinds of books, and allowing a real variety for all tastes and all readers.
I summarised the advantages and disadvantages of both as follows:

Good Things About the Market

• Not snobbish – if a child likes it, and parents prepared to buy it, they will publish it.
• Interested in all age groups and tastes – all “markets” in fact.
• Respects “genre” books – school stories, humour, ponies, mysteries etc
• Want books to be attractive and so compete with other entertainment/consumer goods.

Bad Things About Market

• Publicity potential, celebrity tie-ins, “hooks”, “high concept”, current fashions, may all end up more important than inherent quality.
• “Quieter” books, experimental books, unusual protagonists, niche interests etc may all get overlooked.
• Responds to purchasing power – which means some groups of readers will be neglected.

Good Things About Non-Market Institutions

• Don't just have to think about profit
• May be more likely to reward innovation, experiment or pure literary quality
• Can allow children to discover more 'educational” or worthy themes, or pursue minority interests by providing slow-burn, non-glitzy books
• May help to include groups with low purchasing power

Bad Things About the Non-Market Institutions

• May be overly “worthy” or snobbish – eg about genre books, overtly “commerical” titles – or inversely snobbish (eg the 1970s backlash against “elitist” titles)
• Has its own fads and fashions
• Adult-led – danger of losing touch with child readers
• May have objectives which may come before pure quality or enjoyment.

Where are we now? 

It's often said that we live in a new “Golden Age” of children's books. But I think as a writer, a parent and a children's book lover, there are reasons for concern.

On one level, the market is doing its bit – there are an enormous quantity of books out there: 10,000 new titles for children are published every year in the UK. Most of them are available at the click of a button from Amazon – often very cheaply). There's also evidence at the moment that children's book sales are performing more strongly than other kinds of book.  But many of use know all too well that many kids are not coming into contact with this richness. Bookshops have been closing at a frightening rate. The choice in supermarkets is extremely narrow. (Many of those 10,000 titles surely never appear in a shop at all.) Inevitably, publishers are finding it hard to bring new books to the attention of the book-buying public (the decline in newspaper review space does not help) and to build up new authors: hence the growth in celebrity authors who can garner their own publicity. As for Amazon and co – well, if you don't already know what you want, the millions of titles available at the click of a button really doesn't do you a lot of good.

Meanwhile in schools libraries and librarians often do not exist. School Library Services – which provide vital support and expertise to individual schools – are closing fast. Public libraries have been targeted for closures and cutbacks. (There were 600 fewer libraries in the UK in 2014 than 2004, and 500 of these had closed since 2010. Source: CIPFA public library statistics.) The role of libraries is being squeezed in more subtle ways than simple closures also. For example, for cost reasons librarians often have to rely on private companies to choose their stock – and may have little time to read, assess and choose books. Teachers may also find it hard to choose and recommend books for their pupils's general reading, given that they are given little training in children's literature or time to keep up with new titles.

All this means that the non-market infrastructure is being eroded. The informed discussion about children's books – what's out there, what works and what doesn't – diminishes. That informed discussion doesn't always get it right, but as a counterweight and a complement to the purely commercial, it's important that it exists. These days I doubt very much that anybody would worry about some librarians who decided to go on a vendetta against a popular author such as Enid Blyton. (Thank goodness for that.) But the flip side is that librarians and teachers may no longer have the confidence or the clout to make any impact on market trends.

In Part 1 I referred to the life story of Kaye Webbe, and how the Puffin imprint she ran flourished in an environment of expanding library services and thriving independent bookstores. That environment is very different now.(In this respect the UK situation seems very different than the USA, where both school and public libraries are still vital and powerful shapers of which children's books succeed.) All this is why even an interested adult, whether teacher or parent, can end up struggling to find the books they need or want for their child, and can feel dependent on a limited choice of bestsellers, celebrity-authored books, or old favourites from childhood. Its frustrating knowing there are so many new books out there, and not being able to identify the ones you really want to buy and read. And certain kinds of books – the more “worthy” or "niche" kind, which maybe need a place on a library shelf where the right child will eventually happen upon them – may be overlooked. 

 Am I being too gloomy here? I hope so. Please let me know what you think...
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emma's Wild Thing series for 8+ about the naughtiest little sister ever. (Cover - Jamie Littler)
"Hilarious and heart-warming" The Scotsman

 Wolfie is a story of wolves, magic and snowy woods...
(Cover: Emma Chichester Clark)
"Funny, clever and satisfying..." Books for Keeps

Emma's Website
Emma’s Facebook Fanpage
Emma on Twitter - @EmmaBarnesWrite

The Market or Institutions or Both? Which Route Produces the Best Kids' Books Part 1 by Emma Barnes

With the recent election for Labour Party leader, there's been a lot of debate on whether goods and services like electricity, train travel, health etc should be provided via government institutions or privately through the market, or a mixture of both. So far as I know, none of the candidates put forward a view with regard to children's books (correct me if I'm wrong!) So I thought I'd do a bit of ruminating on the subject myself. It may be a rather dry-sounding issue for a books blog – but important all the same.

It's a Market, Innit?

In some ways, children's books are a classic free market good. Books are commissioned and produced by publishers, who are typically private companies aiming to produce a profit, and are then sold in bookshops or online (again, privately owned companies hoping to make a profit) to consumers (parents children and teenagers themselves). The writer is usually a self-employed individual, receiving sale-dependent royalties. So far, so free market. (And here many authors reading this will be giving hollow laughs, thinking they know all this already: how many writers have heard that though an editor “loves” their story, they can't see “a market” for it or they don't think they could “market” it successfully? In fact, there's a lot of writers out there who regularly bemoan the commercial nature of modern publishing.)

Or is it?

But in fact, there is a lot of non-market involvement too. For one thing, schools and libraries buy large numbers of children's books, and provide them to children without charge. They fund this with public money (taxation) and have traditionally different criteria for choosing books from the individual consumers who go into bookshops. Librarians and teachers shape wider consumer taste too - for example, by reviewing books, or by running awards (one of the most prestigious children's books awards, the Carnegie, is chosen by librarians) or by inviting authors into schools to discuss their books. Some writers receive funding through the government-funded Arts Council, or rely on income from school visits and library events, or from teaching creative writing in universities or elsewhere. Then there is the role of the National Curriculum in determining which educational books are published, or book festivals in promoting books and authors. There is big institutional framework, which is not driven by profit.

Does all this matter? A book is a book – if it ends up in a child's hands via a 3 for 2 table in a big chain bookstore, or via a library shelf after being on an awards shortlist, the response of the child is what matters, surely?

It might not be so simple.  Looking back on my own favourite childhood reads, I'd argue that the two routes can produce rather different books. Here are a few examples, all of them books I loved and cherished, but which I came across in different ways..

Emma's Bookshelf - the Market-Led books

Enid Blyton was wildly popular with kids but was widely shunned by the books “establishment” - she didn't get prizes, was often excluded from schools and libraries for her allegedly dubious values, both cultural and literary, and her work was famously banned by the BBC.  But her books sold (and still sell) in bucket loads – a definite case of the customer winning out.

My favourites included the Secrets series, the Famous five, the Magic Faraway Tree...I could go on.

The “Jill” Books by Ruby Ferguson – this girls' pony series never won any prizes, but like many readers I loved its wit and verve.

The Chalet School Books – girls' school stories were another genre often regarded with pure snobbery by the establishment – no prizes or reviews - yet this series not only established a huge fan base (and still has a strong adult following) but surely deserves credit for its unusually cosmopolitan setting and cross-national cast of characters.

Roald Dahl – it's strange to remember that Dahl was actually viewed with suspicion at first by many in the UK book world. Eventually – after his enormous popularity in the US could no longer be ignored – he was published in the UK, and of course became equally successful.

How did I acquire these books? I never saw any of them in my local library or at my school (except for, perhaps, Dahl). Instead I was either bought them as presents or I actually bought them for myself - not new (I didn't have the funds) but second hand from the shelves of DL's Book Exchange, where the small children's section was squeezed in between the shelves of adult paperbacks.

Non-Market Led

Some of my favourite books, though, were less mainstream. I was an avid reader of historical fiction – a lot of which, I suspect, depended on libraries for sales and shelf-space. The covers were often rather worthy and “educational” in appearance – not designed to immediately entice a child. Such books would sit on the library shelf until some child like me stumbled upon it, decided to give it a go - and then took it to their hearts.

My battered copy

A classic example is One is One.  A real slow burner, with much dense description, set in the medieval period, it relates the story of Stephen, a bullied boy whose artistic gift  ultimately leads him to choose life in a monastery over the adventure of being a knight. Doesn't exactly sound like a crowd pleaser? But it's a wonderful book and actually still in print today. (It's harder to imagine it being taken on and published today, I have to admit).

Needless to say, I never found any of these books at DL's book exchange.

Both Market and Institutions

What's interesting to me is that some favourite authors fall between camps. Or rather they depended on both routes for success.  

Diana Wynne Jones, although probably one of the most influential children's fantasy authors of the twentieth century, was never a household name. I actually bought Charmed Life myself, new, at a Puffin book sale at my school. (It was very rare that I bought a new book for myself.) So – that was my choice was as a consumer. However, it was a choice from a range of books that would have been considered suitable to offer in a school in those days – the solid titles, rather than the glitzy. (And Charmed Life had won an award, which might have led to its inclusion.) My other favourite, The Ogre Downstairs, was acquired through school too.  Like Forest, I'd suggest Jones reached her ardent fans by negotiating a rather tricky route between commercial and institutional approval.

Antonia Forest never won a huge audience, but she did get favourable reviews and Carnegie nominations early in her career. Later on, though, when many librarians shunned her for being “elitist” it is probably the fact that her school stories were so squarely “genre”, and so were released by Puffin, which ensured she continued to find enthusiastic fans.

Kaye Webb biography

Kaye Webb's biography is a fascinating insight into some of these interactions, and how children's publishing worked, during the time when I was a child reader. Webb was the chief at Puffin – the immensely influential paperback children's imprint which brought many authors into the mass market. Webb had enormous freedom to follow her tastes – but, as her biographer points out, the massive expansion in demand from libraries and schools was equally important in trends, creating new demands - for example, for books about children from less privileged backrounds, something publishers like Webb then responded to. This was an “institutional” objective – more diverse characters – but there were also more purely “market” pressures: Webb was not herself a particular fan of Roald Dahl, but his enormous appeal to children (demonstrated through hardback sales) meant she did publish him, and his titles became some of Puffin's most successful ever.

the first Mantlemass book

One of my own childhood favourites, the Mantlemass series – was published by Webb after she had surveyed libraries about their most popular titles. I remember myself originally discovered the Mantlemass series in hardback in my public library (I can still visualize the covers) – then acquiring my own puffin copies, to read again and again.

My childhood reading would have suffered if I'd been only reliant on one category of books – the purely commercial or the institutionally approved. Both were needed. (And both, it has to be said, delivered their clangers too. The pulpier titles of DL's Book Exchange did not always deliver on their promise. Some of the “worthy” school and library reads were pretty turgid too.)  When I look  at children's books, a mixture of organisations, of market and non-profit-driven institutions, seems to have been what worked.

I thought I'd try and organise these thoughts a little.  Here, it seems to me, are some of the pros and cons of both categories.

Good Things About the Market

• Not snobbish – if a child likes it, and parents are prepared to buy it, they will publish it.

• Interested in all age groups and tastes – all “markets” in fact.

• Respects “genre” books – school stories, humour, ponies, mysteries etc

• Want books to be attractive and so compete with other entertainment/consumer goods.

Bad Things About Market

• Publicity potential, celebrity tie-ins, “hooks”, “high concept”, current fashions, may all end up more important than inherent quality.

• “Quieter” books, experimental books, unusual protagonists, niche interests etc may all get overlooked.

• Responds to purchasing power – which means some groups of readers will be neglected.

Good Things About Non-Market Institutions

• Don't just have to think about profit

• May be more likely to reward innovation, experiment or pure literary quality

• Can allow children to discover more "educational” or worthy themes, or pursue minority interests by providing slow-burn, non-glitzy books

• May help to include groups with low purchasing power

Bad Things About Non-Market Institutions

• May be overly “worthy” or snobbish – eg about genre books, overtly “commerical” titles – or inversely snobbish (eg the 1970s backlash against “elitist” titles)

• Has its own fads and fashions

• Adult-led – danger of losing touch with child readers

• May have objectives which may come before pure quality or enjoyment. 

This has turned into a monster post - for which, apologies! Meantime, I'd like to hear your thoughts. How are books being provided - how should they be provided?  How did you get hold of your favourite books, then and now?  And how does this all impact on the children's book market today (a question I'll return to next time...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emma's Wild Thing series for 8+ about the naughtiest little sister ever. (Cover - Jamie Littler)
"Hilarious and heart-warming" The Scotsman

 Wolfie is a story of wolves, magic and snowy woods...
(Cover: Emma Chichester Clark)
"Funny, clever and satisfying..." Books for Keeps

Emma's Website
Emma’s Facebook Fanpage
Emma on Twitter - @EmmaBarnesWrite

Why I don't want to self-publish again

(Kate Wilson of the wonderful Nosy Crow asked me to write a guest post for her on my experiences of self-publishing as a published author. For your info, she didn't know what those experiences were, so there was no direction or expectation. I have re-posted it here, with permission. Note that this is personal experience, not advice.)

Many writers, previously published or not, talk excitedly about why they enjoy self-publishing. Let me tell you why I don’t.

I’ve self-published (only as ebooks) three of my previously published YA novels and three adult non-fiction titles which hadn’t been published before. From these books I make a welcome income of around £250 a month – a figure that is remarkably constant. So, why have I not enjoyed it and why won’t I do it again?

It’s damned hard to sell fiction! (Over 90% of that £250 is from the non-fiction titles.) Publishers know this. They also know that high sales are not always about “quality”, which is precisely why very good novels can be rejected over and over. Non-fiction is easier because it’s easy to find your readers and for them to find your book. Take my book about writing a synopsis, for example; anyone looking for a book on writing a synopsis will Google “books on writing a synopsis” and, hey presto, Write a Great Synopsis appears. But if someone wants a novel, the chances of finding mine out of the available eleventy million are slim. This despite the fact that they had fab reviews and a few awards from their former lives.

But some novels do sell well. So why don’t mine? Because I do absolutely nothing to sell them. Why not? Well, this is the point. Several points.

First, time. I am too busy with other writing and public-speaking but, even if I weren’t, the necessary marketing takes far too long (for me) and goes on for too long after publication: the very time when I want to be writing another one. This is precisely why publishers tend only to work on publicity for a short while after publication: they have other books to work on. We may moan but it has to be like that – unless a book does phenomenally well at first, you have to keep working at selling it.

Second, I dislike the stuff I’d have to do to sell more books. Now, this is where you start leaping up and down saying, “But published authors have to do that, too!” Yes, and I do, but it’s different. When a publisher has invested money because they believe in your book, you obviously want to help them sell it. But when the only person who has actually committed any money is you, the selling part feels different. It’s a case of “I love my book so much that I published it – now you need to believe in me enough to buy it.” I can’t do it. Maybe I don’t believe in myself enough. Fine. I think books need more than the author believing in them. The author might be right and the book be fabulous, but I tend to be distrustful of strangers telling me they are wonderful so why should I expect others to believe me if I say I am? And I don’t want to spend time on forums just to sell more books.

Third, I love being part of a team. Yes, I’ve had my share of frustrating experiences in the course of 100 or so published books, but I enjoy the teamwork – even though I’m an introvert who loves working alone in a shed; I love the fact that other people put money and time and passion into selling my book. It gives me confidence and support. They won’t make money if they don’t sell my book and I still like and trust that model.

And I especially love that once I’ve written it and done my bit for the publicity machine and done the best I can for my book, I can let it go and write another.

See, I’m a writer, not a publisher. I may love control – the usual reason given for self-publishing – but I mostly want control over my words, not the rest. (That control, by the way, is never lost to a good editor, and I’ve been lucky with genius editors.) So, yes, I am pleased with the money I’ve earned from self-publishing and I love what I’ve learnt about the whole process, but now I’m going back to where I am happy to do battle for real control: my keyboard.

It’s all I want to do.

Nicola Morgan has written about 100 books, with half a dozen "traditional" publishers of various sizes from tiny to huge. She is a former chair of the Society of Authors in Scotland and advises hard-working writers on becoming and staying published, and on the marketing/publicity/events/behaviour that goes along with that.

She has also just created BRAIN STICKS™, an original and huuuuuuge set of teaching resources about the brain and mental health.

Second thoughts on the value of reading in childhood - Clémentine Beauvais

After the let’s-call-it fruitful debate a few months ago on this blog on the value of reading, I was left uneasy. I felt that the question I was truly interested in hadn’t been addressed; instead, the discussion revolved around ‘trash’ and ‘quality’ literature, which wasn’t what I felt to be central to my post.

But I fully understand why. My original post was unnecessarily vociferous and talked about ‘trash’ without definition. I knew very well that it would be a controversial post, but I wrote it too fast and I should have anticipated that this particular aspect would dominate the discussion.

What I was really interested in was the following question: ‘Who benefits most from the notion that any reading is preferable to no reading (or to encounters with other media such as films and video games) in childhood?’

My original blog post failed in part because I was not assertive enough in expressing why there may be an issue with the valorisation of (‘just any’) reading in childhood. I tentatively said things like ‘There are problematic ideological and economic reasons why…’, but didn’t spell them out. I would like to go back to this point because I do think it’s important to have a discussion about it.

Of course, I see reading as essential – and not just because verbal literacy is an important skill. Like all of us on this blog, I do believe that there is something about reading that sets it apart from other types of artistic or fictional encounters, and I love nothing more than seeing children who enjoy reading.

However, I think we have to admit that that something is very hard to pin down, and I am unconvinced by the unspoken hierarchy which puts reading ‘above’ film-watching, video-game-playing etc. in the minds of adults who care about and look after children.

(Therefore I completely agree with all the commenters who said that there should be no hierarchy between ‘classic’ novels and comics, for instance. I said this in a comment that got buried somewhere: I am NOT a 'genre' or 'media snob': I do not classify 'low' and 'high' quality literature in terms of genres or media. On the contrary; I think such distinctions can only exist within genres and media. This is between brackets because I don’t wish to get into another conversation about ‘trash’ and ‘quality’, but go ahead if you really want to…)

I’m unconvinced by this hierarchy, but moreover I am worried about who and what it serves. Of course, it uncontroversially serves children. Having motivated and passionate mediators, teachers, librarians, parents who value reading makes children from all backgrounds more likely to encounter books and to enjoy reading.

However, the undebated claim that any reading is good is also highly profitable to the publishing industry as a whole, indiscriminately. And here I'm uncomfortable. As authors, we don’t want to criticise the publishing industry; we want to support it. Publishing is in a state of unprecedented crisis, so we don’t want to make distinctions as to which parts of the industry to support and which parts to criticise, especially on such elusive grounds as ‘quality’.

Furthermore, authors are under pressure (implicit or explicit) not to express negative opinions they may have about the publishing industry. Mid-list authors, especially, can’t afford to talk about requests they get to make books more commercial, more gendered or less political. The problem doesn’t come from individual editors of course; very often they are distraught to be making such requests. They are themselves under pressure from other departments.

Regardless; in the Anglo-Saxon market, children’s publishers profit to a very large extent from the consensus that any reading is better than no reading when it comes to children.  We should talk about this fact much more than we currently do, because it is problematic. The publishing industry has a very strong financial incentive in maintaining this consensus – and currently, I think that we (authors, mediators, teachers, librarians= 'child people') are maintaining it for them, for free.  

When we say that ‘it’s good’ that children are reading, whatever they may be reading, we are not just supporting ‘reading for pleasure’ (though I accept that we are in part). The sincere desire to be on the side of children is not met by an equally sincere wish on the part of the publishing industry, too many aspects of which are utterly unburdened by such considerations as artistic worth, child development or the value and pleasures of reading. And yes, I know, #NotAllPublishers.

Like several other commenters, I think the dichotomy between ‘reading for pleasure’ and ‘serious’ or ‘quality’ reading is hugely problematic. This dichotomy happens to profit, very conveniently, contemporary children’s publishing in its most undesirable aspects.

By ‘most undesirable aspects’ I mean extreme commercialism, market imperatives superseding or driving editorial work, reliance on formulae and ‘what sells to TV or cinema’, etc. And often, this leads to the production of books which are ideologically problematic (resting on lazy sexist, racist, classist, etc., clichés).

There is always the argument, of course, that those profit-driven aspects of the publishing industry serve to fund the more niche, quality books. This argument may be valid in part, but it’s too neat a defence to convince me fully.

I’m not naïve – I know very well that ‘publishing isn’t a charity’ (that’s something we hear a lot as writers - another mantra we gradually internalise.) I don’t think there is an easy solution to these problems. Other countries do things differently, privileging quality and accepting very niche books, but writers earn much less money than we do here (yes, it’s possible…) and there’s virtually no way of scraping a living out of writing.

I do believe that a quiet way of making a small difference could be to stop condoning the indiscriminate statement that any reading is a good thing (which doesn’t mean ripping books out of children’s hands – just saying this in case someone is tempted to pull the ‘censorship alert’ cord).

A not-so-quiet way is to have this kind of debate, politely but firmly, on a public forum such as this one. 

_____________________________________

Clementine Beauvais writes children's books in both French and English. She blogs here about children's literature and academia and is on Twitter @blueclementine.